Slashdot Mirror
Tara Reid And The Future Of Game Development
Thanks to GameSpy for its article covering Naughty Dog's president Jason Rubin discussing why gaming needs to do more for its talent. Rubin explained the strange title of his lecture by referencing to Sony's E3 2003 party: "After several calls, lots of hassle, waiting in a long line, and a trip through the metal detector, Rubin was able to get in. Meanwhile, Hollywood darling Tara Reid simply strolled into the party. This got Rubin thinking about how much money and attention publishers garnish celebrities with. By contrast, the business does a really poor job of promoting its own talent." He went on to note: "Very rarely do you see a developer's name on the box, and sometimes you don't even see the developer's logo", and urged a change of attitude: "Developers should look at publishers as people they hire to sell the game they made."
I even know a few people who believe that the publisher is the one who makes the games. One of them continued to argue with me in the case of True Crime: Streets of LA, telling me that Activision makes all his favorite games, and that there was no way that i was telling him they didn't make them at all. (except for marketing, packaging, etc.) It's really sad that the publisher gets all the glory, because that puts them in a position of advantage on the developers, giving the publisher all the money for doing less work. This is really evident when looking at EA --- its "EA games' Battlefield 1942", not "DICE's Battlefield 1942" what the leads to, is the developers completely getting swindled, as the record companies do now, but in a different way -- you won't get sales unless you go with one of the big labels (in the case of games, publishers), and if you DO go with them, they'll swindle you for all you're worth. I'd really like to hear some real developer's opinions on this though, as IANAGD. (I am not a game developer) C'mon guys, i know you're out there.
Newsie, Moderator, www.tauniverse.com
This is really a problem with American and European publishers (Peter Molyneux promoting himself and Lionhead Studios notwithstanding). In Japan, the developers are well known and given credit for their work. Voice actors, who often do no other voice acting other than video game related gigs, are treated like rock stars by video game fans.
The attitude seems to be that the folks that market the game seem to think THEY are the stars. Developers are regarded as slave labor to be exploited and dismissed.
The way Hollywood treats the talent sucks. But's that's as true for Tara Reid as for Jason Rubin. As Ms. Reid will find out the very moment people get bored with her.
So Jason, if you want to be treated like a real human being, switch to an industry that grasps the concept.
From his article "To make the changes, Rubin urged developers to reverse their thinking. He feels that talent needs to force the change. Developers should look at publishers as people they hire to sell the game they made. The talent should view the publisher as a tool for marketing, public relations, and sales. They are the ones making the games and they are the ones that should be wielding more power."
I remember a publishing company called Gathering of Developers that started up using these ideals. Ideals like the developers deserve credit for their work, and other similar concepts. Great idea, but they were never taken seriously. And after seeing somewhat of how they ran and showed themselves, it's not a wonder. If someone attempts to do this again, they need to be a tad more mature, at least until they have a few top selling titles under their belt.
I do wish developers got the recognition they deserve. But by no means do they deserve the world, and some of them I think expect this.
It works the other way too. I had a TERRIBLE expiriance with Sid Meier's Sim Golf, and I doubt I will ever buy one of his games again. If I do it will be a very VERY hard sell. This would be nice too because companies that continue to produce slop would be frowned upon and more people would avlid their crud. As it is now you have everything from fantastic games to the worst things you've ever played all under one name (like EA).
It makes sense too. This really is a talent business like the movies and not just a "name" business like bras or something. And when was the last time ANYONE went to see a movie because it was being distributed by Warner or Sony? People could care less who distributes the movie, it's who directed/stars/wrote/produced it.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Developers should look at publishers as people they hire to sell the game they made.
If only they were in a position to do so. Most first time or independent developers have a very hard time getting the cash needed to finish a title. Who provides the cash? That's right, the publishers. Not only do they help get that game finished, they also provide marketing and get a game on the store shelves. Because of that, publishers get to be picky about what games they want due to the large amount of developers trying to get their attention.
Unless the world of game developers collectively decided to tell the publishers off on three, there's no way that the developer is going to become the one wearing the pants in the developer/publisher relationship. They have the power. Unless you can get your game onto a shelf and marketed without them, they always will be. But, you might just be able to become totally self-sufficient if you want to; as long as you don't believe that you'll be an industry player overnight.
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
Look at any game by id Software. You'll see the "id" logo prominently on the box. There's no mistaking who made that game when you look at the box. Ditto anything by Blizzard. Squaresoft/Square-Enix. Valve. Bioware, to some extent. Sure, in all these cases the publisher will be listed too (there will certainly be an "Activision" somewhere on the box of a game by id) but the developer is given high billing.
Why? Because the publishers ARE trying to do the marketing, distributing, etc. and they know that there are fans that will look at a game by Blizzard, or id, or what have you, and buy it for that reason.
This is no different than in Hollywood. There are some directors/writers/etc. that are big enough names that people will go see their movies specifically because it's one of theirs. And, certainly, there are other directors/etc. that may make quality movies, but don't yet have that recognition. It doesn't mean they suck. In the game industry, there aren't necessarily INDIVIDUALS that are like this, but rather development groups.
If a developer continues to create innovative and popular games, they will get the recognition they deserve. Naughty Dog has done some good games, this is true, but when you think of big developers, they aren't one that comes to mind. If they succeed over time, it will come.
I think Jason Rubin is longing for the days past when EA tried to market their deveopers like artists. Remember the bios and pictures that were included in every EA game in days past? I think Mr. Rubin and his Naughty Dog partner were featured in at least one of those (Keef the Thief?) as well.
The question of course is, in a dev team of 20+ people who gets the rock star status? Jason Rubin or that guy 3 cubes down who is the genious behind graphics engine?
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. -Plato
It seems that he is talking about two different things. It seems that letting in a celebrity is a case where they are trying to make gaming look cool. "Look hollywood celebrity X thinks games are cool! That means that liking games makes you cool too!"
The issue of not giving designers enough credit is something else. Even in Hollywood, for every Lucas there are a million other people who make competent work and go unknown. Let's face it, even one of the biggest directors is probably much less reccognizable than the biggest actor simply because the directors are not on camera. The same holds true of game designers. By the nature of their work they can't really get as much screen time as an actor, so they will be less well known.
I don't think the case of EA taking the glory for a film is that unusual. How many films does someone like Mirimax or Lion's Gate just buy and put their name on it and get the credit for putting out quality films?
Certainly designers do deserve more credit, but to compare designers level of celebrity to an actress is to compare apples and oranges.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
That's business as usual in corporate America. CEO's and board chairman are always tooting their own horns with hardly any recognition given to the underlings who actually perform the work.
No sig for you!!
I guess this is not viable for consoles, but it's a nice way to work if you make computer games. So, if you can develop quality games on a low budget... what to do? Publish them as shareware! In time, with some luck and a lot of hard work, your company may become big enough to make more complex games and publish them boxed.
Examples of this? iD, Ambrosia, Freeverse, Pangea, and Bungie.
Circumcision is child abuse.
A lot of the appeal of celebrities is SEX appeal. This includes film, TV, and music celebrities. Of course, athletes are somewhat different, in that the famous ones are predominantly men being watched by a male audience. However, the athlete's appeal, while not sexual is physical in any case (strength, agility, etc).
In any case, both of these kinds of appeal manifest themselves visually.
On the contrary, there are lots of skilled people in the entertainment industry who do the bulk of the work who are not lavished with attention -- screenwriters, for example, or cinematographers, sound engineers, and producers.
These are people who benefit neither from name recognition nor the constant attention of the camera. (A few directors, like some game developers, do at least attain some celebrity occasionally owing to name recognition, i.e. "branding.")
In my experience, good developers DO get recognized, maybe not by the publisher, but gamers, magazines and websites will note the developer.
The thing is, good developers are rare, and mediocre developers are a dime a dozen.
In an industry that is dominated more and more by rehashed formulas, dead mules beating beaten for 4 or 5 more sequals, and games whose whole concept is "hey, what if we made a game with all these chicks in like bikinis and they could jump around and shit. Oh we could have them play Volleyball! dude wouldn't that be awsome" the job of the developer is being replaced more and more by code monkies and marketing.
The point being, developers of many games that come out are nothing special, so why should they be treated like that, and from a publishers viewpoint, why excert the time and money to create a rockstar persona for a really awsome developer when they could just shit-can him and higher a few people to make Grand Theft Auto Elevendy Two or Dead or Alive: Naked Chicks on Trampolines.
Good developers do it because they love making games, poor developers don't deserve recognition anyway.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
A developer label or splash screen is about as meaningful as the production studio for a movie. Does anyone really associate American Zoetrope with quality despite the fact it's Francis Ford Coppolas's company? Well, that depends on if you think "Jeepers Creepers" has any relation to "The Godfather" or even "Lost in Translation" in quality.
Fact of the matter is, developer (company) don't mean much.
Now if you've got a hot shot game designer then sure he's got some attention. Peter Molynux, Shigeru Miyamoto, Will Wright, John Carmack. They ARE on the level of Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg. Sure, they don't say "John Carmack's Quake VII" or "Will Right's Sim City V," they can't all be Sid Mieir (who incidentally heavily borrowed the concept of Civilization from an identically named Avalon Hill board game which later became its video game. Avalon Hill ceased publishing Civilization and Advanced Civilization and was bought up by Hasbro upon implosion. Now all they sell is Risk shit).
It's a bit funny, because at the 2001 GDC Mr. Rubin had a talk entitled "Coming Out Of the Garage". He spoke about how independent developers need to "grow up" in order to get out of the garage, and how they need to accept publishers as vital to the process of game development. Guess he's seen what happens from that attitude. ;)
Make no mistake about it, the publisher holds most of the cards. The developer is at the publisher's whim for the most part, since the publisher holds the purse strings. The few developers you see that are recognized, namely id, Blizzard, etc, were first successful outside of publisher influence. Take id for example; they started with shareware games. Even before DOOM and Wolfenstein 3D they had Commander Keen. Once DOOM hit the big time through shareware channels, id was able to negotiate a favorable deal with publishers to get the game on shelves. Their next games were sweet deals with publishers because they were already recognized; the Quake games had practically guaranteed audiences, the publisher just needed to get boxes on the shelves.
And, for the apologists that say the developer takes big risks, I'll have to call you on that bullshit. Great game development studios go out of business all the time, so obviously some risk is assumed by the developers as well, even if they have a wildly successful game series.
The main problem, in my opinion, is that games cost a lot to develop these days, and small companies rarely have the money to create a modern game. In the past, creating a game like Wolf3D was the result of a fairly small team of people. These days you need lots of developers to create high production value assets; the market demands the shiniest graphics and the coolest explosions. A great game without the expected level of polish is going to be ignored for the most part.
Yes, I realize that some people can look past the exterior to see a great game, but it's SO much easier to market a prettier game. My own game Meridian 59 shows this perfectly. The game has a DOOM-type software rendering engine, and gets consistently passed over in favor of the newer, shinier competitor. We've tried to develop a game that offers what other games on the market lack, namely balanced and fun Player vs. Player (PvP) combat. Yeah, this is considered a niche market, but not as niche as our subscriber numbers might otherwise indicate. (As a note, we are working on a significant engine upgrade. [Warning: large images.])
In the end, publishers hold all the cards, and the developers aren't going to be able to do much about it. The real power lies in the game buyers, who can choose to either buy what's marketed to them, or they can go look for the independent game developers that are creating innovative products. But, for now, the alternative to taking publisher money is to focus on smaller-scale niche titles by developing a taste for Ramen noodles. There's a reason why the phrase "starving artist" exists.
My thoughts,
Brian "Psychochild" Green
MMO developer's blog